There will be no getai performances and other forms of stage performances and entertainment allowed before, during or after election rallies, said the police on Friday (Aug 14).
Seventh Month event organisers should also ensure that no speeches intended to canvass support for election candidates or political parties are delivered during these events, it added in a press release, saying this is stipulated under the Public Order (Election Meetings) Regulations 2009.
Additionally, outdoor rallies for the upcoming General Election should be held only at designated rally sites, and the police will make available sufficient rally sites to contesting parties or independent candidates for this purpose, it said.
“The ballot method used to allocate rally sites in the 2012 and 2013 by-elections will also be used for the upcoming General Election to allocate rally sites,” said police.
“To ensure contesting parties and independent candidates have more opportunities to use their preferred rally sites on their preferred dates, a ‘give-way’ rule will be implemented. Parties that have been allocated a site will have to ‘give way’ to other applicants that apply for the same site at the same timeslot on the following day,” it added.
To ensure every GE contestant can hold at least one outdoor rally within the last two to three nights of campaigning, a “block ballot” method will be implemented in constituencies where the number of contesting parties and/or independent candidates is more than the number of rally sites, said the police.
Under the block ballot method, the last two to three nights for rally sites will be grouped together for application as a block. Contesting parties and independent candidates can only apply for one site on one night within the block, it explained.
The allocation of outdoor assembly centre sites on Counting Night will also be done via a ballot method, according to the press release.
Details on the application and allocation process for rally sites and assembly centre sites will be released after the Writ of Election is issued, police said.
Often, when people say ‘yes the PAP is not perfect, but what alternative do we have?’, you get the sense that they either do not comprehend our political system or they are setting up a false dilemma. This time, like previous years, we are not voting for which party will serve as government: in all likelihood, the PAP will remain as our government. With that in mind then, the questions that should be asked automatically become different. Perhaps the following questions, amongst others, would be more pertinent:
1) Do we believe there is a need to have checks and balances in Parliament against any one party?
2) Since 2011, with more opposition parliamentarians, has the government become more responsive to the desires of the electorate?
3) Has the Workers’ Party lived up to its claim of being a ‘responsible opposition’ party?
4) Are the individual opposition candidates and their respective parties ‘credible’ enough for us, however we define it?
I personally believe that in any other situation, most people would loathe the idea of giving any one person or party near-absolute control over their affairs, so I am not sure why people make exceptions in the case of Singapore politics. At the same time, I cannot say that the performance of WP – both in and outside Parliament – has been so stellar in the past 4 years that they would immediately deserve my vote. That would be my personal dilemma.
Ultimately, each of us would have our own standards in choosing which party to cast our vote for. Hopefully as our society matures politically, the discussions on voting, politics and societal issues would be centered on genuine considerations rather than fear-mongering or red herrings.
Parti Tindakan Rakyat (PAP) mula memperkenalkan calon-calon barunya yang bakal bertanding dalam Pilihan Raya Umum (GE) akan datang.
Mereka adalah Ketua Kajian Matawang Asing Maybank, Encik Saktiandi Supaat, 42 tahun; Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif OUE Hospitality REIT Management Pte Ltd, Encik Chong Kee Hiong, 49 tahun; dan mantan Setiausaha Tetap Kedua (Perdagangan dan Perusahaan) Encik Chee Hong Tat (gambar bawah).
Kesemua mereka diperkenalkan kepada media dalam satu persidangan yang diadakan di sebuah kedai kopi di Blok 177, Toa Payoh Central, pagi tadi.
Lui’s resignation – a sign of weak leadership from the top
“Singapore will not encourage a culture where ministers resign whenever things go wrong on their watch, whether or not they are actually to blame,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was reported to have said in 2008 during the debate on the escape of terrorist suspect, Mas Selamat Kastari.
My Paper, 2008
Mr Lee was disabusing calls for the then Minister of Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, to step down after Mas Selamat climbed through a window at the Whitley Road Detention Centre and escaped.
Mr Wong stayed on and finally stepped down from the Cabinet in 2011, but remains a Member of Parliament (MP) till this day.
Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew’s surprise announcement on Tuesday that he will not be contesting the upcoming elections is, despite the criticisms, the right thing for him to do.
This is in spite of the flawed principle espoused by Mr Lee – that ministers will not be asked to resign when “things go wrong on their watch, whether or not they are actually to blame.”
While Mr Lui himself did not provide a clear reason for his stepping down, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he did it out of a sense of honour – to take responsibility for the failings of the transport system these past several years – and doing so in a manner which will not be seen as setting a precedent for ministers to resign when things go wrong.
“I have put in my utmost into fulfilling my responsibilities,” Mr Lui, who first came into politics in the 2006 general election, said in his letter to Mr Lee.
The upcoming General Election, he said, “provides an opportunity for me to step back from politics without causing major disruption to Government at the end of its term.”
Without a clear reason for his decision, speculations will surface and indeed they have.
“Was subjected to daily incessant attacks but carried on doing his duty, calmly, and with equanimity,” Law Minister, K Shanmugam, said on his Facebook page. “Could not have been easy for him and his family to be subjected to such incessant and frequently unfair attacks. Many in his position will naturally ask why should they subject themselves to this.”
Mr Shanmugam’s remarks stand in contrast to that of his fellow PAP MP and Mayor of Central Singapore CDC, Denise Phua.
Ms Phua, who is Mr Lui’s colleague in the soon-to-be-defunct Moulmein-Kallang GRC, said the latter “took the brunt of public anger” but “took criticisms and online flaming in his stride, and quietly focused on resolving problems on the ground.”
Nonetheless, to place the blame on criticisms, incessant or not, is simplistic and misguided.
While no one would argue that ministers nowadays do in fact face vocal criticisms from the public, one must also look deeper into the cause.
And as far as Mr Lui’s situation is concerned, there are many issues which have led to such vocal criticisms – and one of these is the lack of accountability from those who are in charge of the transport system, despite all the years of failures, delays, disruptions, and breakdowns.
For example, no one in the oversight regulatory body, the Land Transport Authority (LTA), has been taken to account for its failure to ensure maintenance work was carried out regularly and adequately.
The LTA website says, “LTA regulates and oversees all three main modes of public transport (taxis, buses and trains) and ensures that they meet safety and service standards.”
A committee of inquiry held after the two massive breakdowns in December 2011 concluded that “maintenance lapses [were the] main cause of [the] train breakdowns.”
“Lapses in the way SMRT maintained its rail system were key contributory factors behind last December’s MRT breakdowns, a high-level inquiry has concluded,” the Straits Times reported back then.
In the first half of this year alone, there were five major MRT service disruptions, which were close to half the total last year.
And just last month, another massive breakdown affected some 250,000 commuters.
Yet, no one has been held to account for all the years of disruptions – not even Saw Phaik Hwa, the former CEO of SMRT.
Instead, she was made the highest-paid SMRT CEO at the time, for two years running, taking home a paycheck of S$1.85 million before she resigned in 2012.
But her salary has been dwarfed by that of her successor Desmond Kuek, who has seen his pay doubled – from about S$1.2 million to $2.25 million – in the space of just 3 years, and making him the highest-paid SMRT CEO ever.
And transport fares continue to rise, despite the billions of dollars which have been poured in, and which will be poured into the public transport operators.
It also doesn’t help that even the former chairman of the Public Transport Council, which regulates fares, slammed commuters for expecting higher standards without wanting higher fares.
Straits Times, May 2014
So, given these and many other issues, is it any wonder that the man at the helm has become the target of unhappiness?
And isn’t it simplistic for the likes of the Law Minister to point to so-called “unfair attacks” by the public to explain one possible reason for Mr Lui’s stepping down?
Mr Lui has done the honourable thing – whether he felt he had done his best or whether he felt he had failed to resolve the transport problems – by stepping down.
For this, perhaps the man ought to be applauded.
At least he does not make excuses for himself, or lays the blame on critics or “unfair attacks”.
If indeed Mr Lui decided to step down because of these “unfair attacks”, then the blame really should be on the weak leadership from the top which shields those directly responsible for failures.
Ironically, it is Mr Lui who seems to have held himself to a higher standard than that of the Prime Minister, who has not shown the gumption to take his ministers (and others) to task but instead shields them with ill-conceived arguments – that “Singapore will not encourage a culture where ministers resign whenever things go wrong on their watch, whether or not they are actually to blame.”
This can only breed even more distrust and give rise to more criticisms.
Just look at the Auditor-General’s Office recent report on its audit of government ministries and statutory boards – has anyone been similarly held accountable?
Political analysts yesterday were surprised not just by the announcement of Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew’s departure but also its timing, given that the polls could be just weeks away.
Given the People’s Action Party’s reputation for meticulous planning and leaving few things to chance, the move to make public Mr Lui’s decision to step down before the polls must have been carefully thought through, the analysts added. They were, however, divided on whether it would benefit the ruling party at the polls.
While Mr Lui’s departure could be perceived as the Government being accountable for transport problems, it could also be seen as an individual unfairly carrying the can for what should be a collective responsibility, they said.
Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan noted that transport — which was a hot topic in the 2011 General Election (GE) — could again be a lightning rod in the coming elections. Mr Lui’s stepping down before the polls would “uncomplicate matters”, he said. “What troubles me is whether a precedent has been set on Ministers taking personal responsibility notwithstanding the principle of the Cabinet’s collective responsibility. I find it rather odd and worrying that the Transport Minister seems to have taken the rap personally. I don’t think anyone can say that he has not been equal to the task … It’s not for want of trying (by Mr Lui),” he said.
National University of Singapore political scientist Bilveer Singh said he was rather taken aback by the move. “We do not stand down ministers before a GE,” he said, also noting that for the PAP, “it is not a question of whether a member … decides where and when to contest (elections). It is decided by a party machinery”.
Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh saidMr Lui has had “a difficult run”, given that he had inherited some of the problems plaguing public transportation — a similar situation faced by his predecessor Mr Raymond Lim.
Mr Lim, who served one term as Transport Minister, stepped down from the Cabinet after the 2011 GE. He remains a Member of Parliament, but is also likely to retire from politics before the coming GE.
Dr Koh said: “In terms of policy, there has been no effort spared to address the issues at the Ministry and government level, and at the operational level, transport companies have also come under very strict scrutiny by the Land Transport Authority. Politically though, voters might recognise that a price has been paid (with Mr Lui stepping down).”
Mr Lui’s engineering background has been seen by some as an advantage in his role. As to who among the present crop of office holders — or potential new faces — may take over the role, Dr Koh said: “The reforms are there to be implemented, but at this stage it will still have to be someone with a stout heart to take up such a challenging portfolio (that) affects millions of Singaporeans every day.”
Assoc Prof Tan added: “What is really needed now is a Minister who is prepared to take on a portfolio which is now regarded very much as a poisoned chalice. It could be a career-limiting move. Hopefully there will be someone who is willing and bold enough to step up to the challenge.”
